Sex education in the United States

Sex education in the United States is taught in two main forms: comprehensive and abstinence-only. Comprehensive sex education covers abstinence as a choice option, but also informs adolescents about the availability of contraception and techniques to avoid contraction of sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence-only sex education emphasizes abstinence from sexual activity prior to marriage and rejects methods such as contraception. The difference between the two approaches, and their impact on the behavior of adolescents, remains a controversial subject in the United States.

Current position

See also: Adolescent sexuality in the United States

Most adolescents in the United States receive some form of sex education at school at least once between grades 6 and 12; many schools begin addressing some topics as early as grades 4 or 5. Academic and other proponents of the National Sexuality Education Standards advocate that by the end of the fifth grade, students should be able to "Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender." However, what students learn varies widely, because curriculum decisions are so decentralized. Many states have laws governing what is taught in sex education classes or allowing parents to opt out. Some state laws leave curriculum decisions to individual school districts.

For example, a 1999 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that most U.S. sex education courses in grades 6 through 12 cover puberty, HIV, STDs, abstinence, implications of teenage pregnancy, and how to resist peer pressure. Other studied topics, such as methods of birth control and infection prevention, sexual orientation, sexual abuse, and factual and ethical information about abortion, varied more widely.

There have been numerous studies on the effectiveness of both approaches, and conflicting data on American public opinion. Public opinion polls conducted over the years have found that the majority of Americans favor broader sex education programs over those that teach only abstinence, although abstinence educators recently published poll data with the opposite conclusion. The poll sponsored by the National Abstinence Education Association and conducted by Zogby International reported information that has not been replicated in methodologically sound surveys.

Experts at University of California, San Francisco also encourage sex educators to include oral sex and emotional concerns as part of their curriculum. Their findings also support earlier studies that conclude:

...that sexual risk-taking should be considered from a dynamic relationship perspective, rather than solely from a traditional disease-model perspective. Prevention programs rarely discuss adolescents’ social and emotional concerns regarding sex....Discussion about potential negative consequences, such as experiencing guilt or feeling used by one's partner, may lead some adolescents to delay the onset of sexual behavior until they feel more sure of the strength of their relationship with a partner and more comfortable with the idea of becoming sexually active. Identification of common negative social and emotional consequences of having sex may also be useful in screening for adolescents at risk of experiencing more-serious adverse outcomes after having sex.

However, according to a 2004 NPR survey, a majority of the 1001 parent groups polled wanted complete sex education in the schools. Respondents were relatively undivided over the issue. Over 80% of polled parents agreed with the statement "Sex education in school makes it easier for me to talk to my child about sexual issues", and under 17% agreed with the statement that their children were being exposed to "subjects I don't think my child should be discussing". Additionally 90% believed that their children’s sexual education was “not too early”. The study also reports that 49% of the respondents were "somewhat confident" that the values taught in their children's sexual education classes were similar to those taught at home, and 23% were somewhat less confident.

On September 15, 2010, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta (CDC) released a government report that found that "almost all U.S. teens have had formal sex education, but only about two-thirds have been taught about birth control methods." Many teenagers are reportedly not absorbing the sex education lessons. The report from CDC is based on face-to-face interviews with nearly 2,800 teenagers in their homes from 2006 through 2008.

Federal funding

Federal Funding for Sex Education 2011

In 2010, Congress eliminated two federal programs that had funded abstinence-only education; the Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Prevention program and the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program; $13 million and $99 million a year, respectively for a total of $112 million a year.

That same year, two new evidenced-based sex education programs were initiated; the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), and the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) initiative; $55 million and $100 million, respectively, for a total of $155 million a year.

Funding for Title V, Section 510 abstinence-only education had expired in 2009, but was reinstated by a provision in the 2010 health care reform law by Senator Orrin Hatch. Although this funding stands at $50 million a year, only $33 million seems to have actually been awarded.

Comprehensive sex education

A 2002 study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 58% of secondary school principals describe their sex education curriculum as comprehensive.

The American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association, have all stated official support for comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive sex education curricula are intended to reduce sexually transmitted disease and out-of-wedlock or teenage pregnancies. According to Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases by Douglas Kirby, Ph.D, “a large body of evaluation research clearly shows that sex and HIV education programs included in this review do not increase sexual activity – they do not hasten the onset of sex, increase the frequency of sex, and do not increase the number of sexual partners."

The Future of Sex Education Project (FoSE) began in July 2007 when staff from Advocates for Youth, Answer and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) first met to discuss the future of sex education in the United States. At the time, each organization was looking ahead to the possibility of a future without federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding and simultaneously found themselves exploring the question of how best to advance comprehensive sexuality education in schools. In May 2008, Advocates, Answer and SIECUS formalized these discussions with funding from the Ford Foundation, George Gund and Grove Foundations, and the FoSE Project was launched. The purpose of the project is to create a national dialogue about the future of sex education and to promote the institutionalization of comprehensive sexuality education in elementary schools. In "Sexuality Education in the United States: Shared Cultural Ideas across a Political Divide," Jessica Fields discusses that sexuality education seeks behavioral change, and believes that worded in specific terms, can be transparent and neutral. At the heart of sexuality debates, practice, and sexuality education lies a stable, rational, and unambiguous relationship between knowledge and behavior.

Proponents of this approach argue that sexual behavior after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized. They hold that abstinence-only sex ed and conservative moralizing will only alienate students and thus weaken the message. When information about risk, prevention, and responsible behavior is presented, it promotes healthy decision-making in youth.

A report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services has found the "most consistent and clear finding is that sex education does not cause adolescents to initiate sex when they would not otherwise have done so." The same report also found that:

Family life or sex education in the public schools, which traditionally has consisted largely of providing factual information at the secondary school level, is the most general or pervasive approach to preventing pregnancy among adolescents....Adolescents who begin having sexual intercourse need to understand the importance of using an effective contraceptive every time they have sex. This requires convincing sexually active teens who have never used contraception to do so. In addition, sexually active teens who sometimes use contraceptives need to use them more consistently (every time they have sex) and use them correctly.

Comprehensive sex education curricula offer medical data that is presented in an age appropriate manner. A wide spectrum of topics is covered in these programs, which include abstinence, contraception, relationships, sexuality and the prevention of disease (Siecus). The main focus is to educate youth so that they can make an informed decision about their own sexual activity and health. Studies have shown that the comprehensive programs work for youth population across the spectrum. Inexperienced, experienced, male, female, the majority of ethnic groups, and different communities all benefited from this type of curriculum. Yet unlike its counterpart, comprehensive sex education programs are ineligible for federal funding due to mandates against educating youth about contraception (Advocates For Youth). The proposed Responsible Education About Life Act (S. 972 and H.R. 1653) would provide federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs which include information on both abstinence and contraception and condoms.

From November 2-6th, 2013, the American Public Health Association will be holding a meeting in Boston, MA regarding a revolutionary new teaching method in regards to Sexual Education. Developed in Los Angeles in 2008, by the UCLA Art & Global Health Center and the LA public schools, the program "Focuses on self-empowerment and open dialogue about sexual health..the interventions include a performance of original material created by college students (known as Sex or Sex-Ed Squads), testimonials by HIV-positive people, and an interactive condom negotiation session." The presentation in November is to gain support for the notion that these art-based approaches are a capable means of education within the public health field

Abstinence-only sex education

Main article: Abstinence-only sex education

Abstinence-only sex education emphasizes abstinence from sex to the exclusion of all other types of sexual and reproductive health education, particularly regarding birth control and safe sex. Adolescents are encouraged to be sexually abstinent until marriage and are not provided with information about contraception. In the Kaiser study, 34% of high-school principals said their school's main message was abstinence-only. Many religious groups consider premarital sex to be morally objectionable and some, such as Catholic church, object to the use of contraception even by married couples. And some of these groups often objects to teaching of contraception because they feel that teaching of contraception for school children presume premarital sex from the outset and somewhat imply that such things are morally permissible. These organization advocate abstinence-only sex education because it is the only approach they find acceptable and in accordance with their religious teachings.

Christian organizations promote abstinence-only as part of what they consider to be "sexual purity", which encompasses abstaining from not only intercourse before marriage, but also from sexual thoughts, sexual touching, pornography, and actions that are known to lead to sexual arousal. One bill forbids the "promotion"of "gateway sexual activity," going so far as to condemn handholding, as Abby Wilkerson discusses in I Want to Hold Your Hand: Abstinence Curricula, Bioethics, and the Silencing of Desire. Advocates of abstinence-only sex education object to comprehensive curricula which fail to teach moral behavior; they maintain that curricula should promote conventional (or conservative) morality as healthy and constructive, and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to immoral, unhealthy and harmful practices. However, abstinence-only education is often in line with heteronormativity, which fails to account for a wide range of youth.

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that programs that stress abstinence as the only acceptable behavior for unmarried teens delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners. According to the study author:

"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

Proponents of abstinence-only sex education object to curricula that fail to teach their standard of moral behavior; they maintain that a morality based on sex only within the bounds of marriage is "healthy and constructive" and that value-free knowledge of the body may lead to immoral, unhealthy, and harmful practices.

Abstinence-only sex education became more prominent in the U.S. over the last decade, largely as a result of over $1 billion in federal government funding initiatives. Through direct funding and matching grant incentives, the U.S. government steered more than a billion dollars to abstinence-only education programs between 1996 and 2006. However, few long-term, rigorous studies have been done on these programs, and their effectiveness remains a matter of question. While abstinence-only sex education is a controversial subject, the fact that complete abstinence itself (even within marriage) is the most effective preventative measure against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases has never been in dispute. What is in dispute is whether abstinence-only sex education actually succeeds in increasing abstinence. Various analyses show that abstinence-based programs have little to no effect on age of sexual initiation, number of sexual partners, or rates of abstinence, use of condoms, vaginal sex, pregnancy, or sexually transmitted diseases.

In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to a welfare reform law establishing a program of special grants to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The program, Title V, § 510(b) of the Social Security Act (now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 710b), is commonly known as Title V. It created very specific requirements for grant recipients. Under this law, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:

1. Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
2. Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
3. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
4. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
5. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
6. Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
7. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
8. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Title V-funded programs were not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.

The program dedicated $50 million annually to be distributed among states choosing to participate. States accepting the funds were required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars. For the first five years of the initiative, every state but California participated in the program.

After its first five years, many states evaluated the effectiveness of their programs. A comprehensive review of 11 state evaluations conducted by Advocates for Youth showed some short-term benefits, but did not find any programs with lasting positive impact.

Research conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2002 indicated that, by that time, about a third of U.S. secondary schools were using an abstinence-only approach. However, after their five-year evaluations, more states began declining the funding. By 2009, only 25 of the 50 states continued to receive and pursue Title V funding.

In 2000, the federal government began another large program to fund abstinence education, Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE). CBAE became the largest federal abstinence-only funding source, with $115 million granted for fiscal year 2006. The CBAE awards bypass state governments, offering federal grants directly to state and local organizations that provide abstinence-only education programs. Many of these grantees are faith-based or small non-profit organizations, including crisis pregnancy centers, which use their grants to provide abstinence-only programs and services in local public and private schools and to community groups. Within the last decade, the federal government has encouraged abstinence-only education by steering over a billion dollars to such programs. Some 25 states now decline the funding so that they can continue to teach comprehensive sex education. Funding for one of the federal government's two main abstinency-only funding programs, Title V, was extended only until December 31, 2007; Congress is debating whether to continue it past that date.

Congress extended funding of Title V several times, through fiscal year 2006. In October 2007, Congress again extended funding, only until December 31, 2007. In 2010, the Obama administration and Congress eliminated two federal abstinence-only programs - the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) grant program and the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) Prevention program. This leaves the Title V program as the only remaining federal abstinence education program.

Role of religion in abstinence-only sex education

The prevalence of religion in the United States contributes to the widespread implementation of abstinence-only sex education. Historically, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, the most common religion in America (though today there exists a wider variety of positions towards contraception within the religion). Some Christians consider birth control a sin, and sex education is based on the belief that sexual intercourse must be "free, total, faithful, and fruitful," and that this is impossible outside the context of marriage. The “Silver Ring Thing” is a nationwide abstinence-only-until-marriage program, and was heavily backed by the Christian church, which claimed, “This mission can only be achieved by offering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the best way to live a sexually pure life.”

Virginity pledges

See also: Virginity pledge

A purity ring can be used as a symbol of a virginity pledge.

Virginity pledges (or “abstinence pledge”) are a written or oral promise that young people make to remain abstinent until marriage. Although often linked to religious abstinence-only programs, virginity pledges have recently become included in many secular abstinence-only programs as well.

A virginity pledge may look like this:

“I, _____________, promise to abstain from sex until my wedding night. I want to reserve my sexual powers to give life and love for my future spouse and marriage. I will respect my gift of sexuality by keeping my mind and thoughts pure as I prepare for my true love. I commit to grow in character to learn to live love and freedom.”

A study done at Columbia University showed that, while many adolescents who take virginity pledges do choose to abstain from sexual activity, those who eventually break their pledge are at a higher risk for unsafe sex their first time than adolescents who did not take a virginity pledge at all. The study also showed that virginity pledges were most effective within a small group of pledgers in an at least partially nonnormative setting, meaning that if abstinence is not the norm, those taking a virginity pledge are more likely to adhere to it.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth has found that, while pledgers are more likely to abstain until marriage than non-pledgers – 99% of whom will have sex before marriage – 88% of the pledgers studied had vaginal intercourse before marriage. Out of those who pledge, there was a significant delay in first experience with vaginal intercourse, with an average delay of 18 months. However, people who took a virginity pledge were found to be less likely to have protected sex upon initiation and less likely to get STI tested if a concern arose.

Controversy

The difference between these two approaches, and their impact on teen behavior, remains a controversial subject. In the U.S., teenage birth rates had been dropping since 1991, but a 2007 report showed a 3% increase from 2005 to 2006. From 1991 to 2005, the percentage of teens reporting that they had ever had sex or were currently sexually active showed small declines. However, the U.S. still has the highest teen birth rate and one of the highest rates of STIs among teens in the industrialized world. Public opinion polls conducted over the years have found that the vast majority of Americans favor broader sex education programs over those that teach only abstinence, although abstinence educators recently published poll data with the opposite conclusion.

Proponents of comprehensive sex education, which include the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association, argue that sexual behavior after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized; they also claim that denying teens such factual information leads to unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

The impact of the rise in abstinence-only education remains a question. To date, no published studies of abstinence-only programs have found consistent and significant program effects on delaying the onset of intercourse. In 2007, a study ordered by the U.S. Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex (and use contraception) in their teenage years as those who did not. Abstinence-only advocates claimed that the study was flawed because it was too narrow and began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and that other studies have demonstrated positive effects.

Criticism of abstinence-only sex education in the U.S. Congress

Two major studies by Congress have increased the volume of criticism surrounding abstinence-only education.

In 2004, U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman of California released a report that provides several examples of inaccurate information being included in federally funded abstinence-only sex education programs. This report bolstered the claims of those arguing that abstinence-only programs deprive teenagers of critical information about sexuality. The claimed errors included:

• misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives
• misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available
• false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy
• treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact
• other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual" (the actual number is 23).

Out of the 13 grant-receiving programs examined in the 2004 study, the only two not containing "major errors and distortions" were Sex Can Wait and Managing Pressures Before Marriage, each of which was used by five grantees, making them two of the least widely used programs in the study. With the exception of the FACTS program, also used by 5 grantees, the programs found to contain serious errors were more widely used, ranging in usage level from 7 grantees (the Navigator and Why kNOw programs) to 32 grantees (the Choosing the Best Life program). Three of the top five most widely used programs, including the top two, used versions of the same textbook, Choosing the Best, from either 2003 (Choosing the Best Life) or 2001 (Choosing the Best Path — the second most widely used program with 28 grantees — and Choosing the Best Way, the fifth most widely used program with 11 grantees).

In 2007, a study ordered by Congress found that middle school students who took part in abstinence-only sex education programs were just as likely to have sex in their teenage years as those who did not. From 1999 to 2006, the study tracked more than 2,000 students from age 11 or 12 to age 16; the study included students who had participated in one of four abstinence education programs, as well as a control group who had not participated in such a program. By age 16, about half of each group students in the abstinence-only program as well as students in the control group were still abstinent. Abstinence program participants who became sexually active during the 7-year study period reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as their peers of the same age; moreover, they had sex for the first time at about the same age as other students. The study also found that students who took part in the abstinence-only programs were just as likely to use contraception when they did have sex as those who did not participate. Abstinence-only education advocates claim the study was too narrow, began when abstinence-only curricula were in their infancy, and ignored other studies that have shown positive effects.

Other criticisms of abstinence-only sex education include emphasizing conventional gender and heterosexual norms and expression, excluding members of the LGBT community. LGBT community members cannot always utilize programs or recommendations from abstinence-only programs as they are not geared toward transgendered and homosexual relationships.

Criticism of abstinence-only sex education by the scientific and medical communities

Abstinence-only education has been criticized in official statements by the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, which all maintain that sex education needs to be comprehensive to be effective.

The AMA "urges schools to implement comprehensive... sexuality education programs that... include an integrated strategy for making condoms available to students and for providing both factual information and skill-building related to reproductive biology, sexual abstinence, sexual responsibility, contraceptives including condoms, alternatives in birth control, and other issues aimed at prevention of pregnancy and sexual transmission of diseases... [and] opposes the sole use of abstinence-only education..."

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "Abstinence-only programs have not demonstrated successful outcomes with regard to delayed initiation of sexual activity or use of safer sex practices... Programs that encourage abstinence as the best option for adolescents, but offer a discussion of HIV prevention and contraception as the best approach for adolescents who are sexually active, have been shown to delay the initiation of sexual activity and increase the proportion of sexually active adolescents who reported using birth control."

On August 4, 2007, the British Medical Journal published an editorial concluding that there is "no evidence" that abstinence-only sex education programs "reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy" in "high income countries".

A comprehensive review of 115 program evaluations published in November 2007 by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that two-thirds of sex education programs focusing on both abstinence and contraception had a positive effect on teen sexual behavior. The same study found no strong evidence that abstinence-only programs delayed the initiation of sex, hastened the return to abstinence, or reduced the number of sexual partners. According to the study author:

"Even though there does not exist strong evidence that any particular abstinence program is effective at delaying sex or reducing sexual behavior, one should not conclude that all abstinence programs are ineffective. After all, programs are diverse, fewer than 10 rigorous studies of these programs have been carried out, and studies of two programs have provided modestly encouraging results. In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination."

Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States, is a notable critic of abstinence-only sex education. She was among the interviewees Penn & Teller included in their Bullshit! episode on the subject.

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that abstinence-only sex education leads to the opposite of the intended results by spreading ignorance regarding sexually transmitted diseases and the proper use of contraceptives to prevent both infections and pregnancy.

In July 2009, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released their analysis of national data collected between 2002 and 2007. Their findings included:

• Birth rates among U.S. teens had increased in 2006 and 2007, following large declines from 1991 to 2005.
• About one-third of adolescents had not received instructions on methods of birth control before age 18.
• In 2004, there were about 745,000 pregnancies among females younger than 20, including an estimated 16,000 pregnancies among girls between 10 and 14.
• In 2006, about one million young people aged 10 to 24 were reported to have chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis. Nearly one-quarter of females aged 15 to 19, and 45% of females aged 20 to 24, had a human papillomavirus infection during 2003 and 2004.
• In 2006, the majority of new diagnoses of HIV infection among young people occurred among males and those aged 20 to 24.
• From 2004 to 2006, about 100,000 females aged 10 to 24 visited a hospital emergency department for nonfatal sexual assault, including 30,000 females aged 10 to 14.
• Hispanic teens aged 15 to 19 are much more likely to become pregnant (132.8 births per 1,000 females) than non-Hispanic blacks (128 per 1,000) and non-Hispanic whites (45.2 per 1,000)
• Non-Hispanic black youth in all age groups have the highest rates of new HIV and AIDS diagnoses.

This report identifies a number of concerns regarding the sexual and reproductive health of our nation's young people... It is disheartening that after years of improvement with respect to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, we now see signs that progress is stalling and many of these trends are going in the wrong direction

— Janet Collins, director of the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 17

LGBT sex education controversy in the United States

A major source of controversy in the field of sex education is whether or not LGTB education should be integrated into course curriculum. LGBT sex education includes the teachings of safe sex for people of all gender and sexual orientation identities. Studies have shown that many schools do not offer such educational tracks today. Supporters of LGBT sex education claim that encompassing all gender and sexual identifications would provide LGBT students with the health information pertinent to them. They argue that these teachings could help prevent low self-esteem, depression, and bullying, as indicated through research. Opponents point out that teaching health topics in this way would be disrespectful to some religions and potentially inflict particular political views on students. In the United States, 12 states require discussion of sexual orientation in sex education. No states currently mandate the discussion of gender identity in the sex education curriculum.

Access to sex education

Receipt of formal sex education has been found to correlate with important factors, such as age, income, race, location, and background.

Regional access

There are significant differences in the content of sexual education in different geographic regions of the U.S. Curriculums in the Northeast are less likely to give abstinence-only sex education as a method of pregnancy and STD prevention than curriculums in the South. This leads to reduced odds of education on a wide variety of topics and methods for students in those areas that teach abstinence-only education. States in the Midwest, South, and West are more likely than schools in the Northeast to teach about the ineffectiveness of non-natural birth control methods or just not cover them at all.

By state

As of November 1, 2014:

• 22 states (and the District of Columbia) mandate that sex education be provided.
  • Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, District of Columbia
• 13 states require that, when provided, sex education be medically accurate.
  • California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington
• 2 states ban the promotion of religion in sex education.
  • California, Louisiana
• 18 states (and the District of Columbia) require that, when provided, sex education must include information on contraception.
  • Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, District of Columbia

12 states require that, when provided, sex education covers sexual orientation.

• 9 States require an inclusive perspective on sexual orientation be given.
  • California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington
• 3 states require that only negative information on sexual orientation be presented.
  • Alabama, South Carolina, Texas

37 states require abstinence education be provided.

• 25 states require abstinence to be stressed.
  • Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin
• 12 States require abstinence to be covered.
  • California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia
• 19 states require that instruction regarding the importance of waiting to engage in sexual relations until marriage be included.
  • Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Influence of wealth on sex education

Teens from non-white, low-income families are more likely to receive abstinence-only sex education, according to the National Survey of Family and Growth. Teens with intact families are also more likely to receive comprehensive sex education than those living with a single parent. Disadvantaged youth are the shown to be the least likely social strata to benefit from formal sex education programs.

Global influence on sexual education

File:Laura Bush talks with African boy.jpg

Laura Bush with an AIDS orphan at a center in Zambia that promotes abstinence and faith for youth.

In 2004, President George W. Bush announced his Five-Year Global HIV/AIDS Strategy. Also known as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the plan committed the U.S. to provide $15 billion over five years toward AIDS relief in 15 countries in Africa and the Caribbean, and in Vietnam. About 20% of the funding, or $3 billion over five years, was allocated for prevention. The program required that, starting in fiscal year 2006, one-third of prevention funding be earmarked specifically for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The earmark had numerous critics, including global AIDS prevention advocates, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and a Congressionally authorized three-year evaluation of PEPFAR by the non-partisan Institute of Medicine.

During its 2008 reauthorization of PEPFAR, Congress dropped the earmark, resorting instead to more flexible spending directives encouraging countries to spend at least 50% of prevention funds on abstinence and fidelity programs.

See also

• Religious views on birth control
• Sexual norm
• Virginity pledge
• Harmful to Minors, a book by Judith Levine, which deals with sexual morality and sex education in the United States
• Permissive society
• Adolescent sexuality
• Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?, an influential 1968 pamphlet opposing sex education
• Social conservatism
• Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
• Guttmacher Institute
• National Sexuality Education Standards

References

Sources

• Williams, Mary E. (Ed.). (2006). Sex: opposing viewpoints. Detroit: Greenhaven.

External links

• Abstinence Comes To Albuquerque Documentary on Google Video
• The Education of Shelby Knox PBS POV video documentary and companion website
• Future of Sex Education Project of SIECUS, Advocates for Youth, includes evidence based sex education standards.

Abstinence only Proponents

• Abstinence Clearinghouse
• National Abstinence Education Association
• Heritage Foundation Pro-Abstinence Research

Comprehensive Sexuality Education Proponents

• Sexuality Information and Education Association of the United States
• National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy
• Guttmacher Institute
• Legal Momentum